11¢ THE HIGH comrr 01'-* KARNATAKA, _
DATED THIS mm 20'"! DAY or T 4 "
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE mofA;;$i:;§E1j:bY f »
w.P.No.2e14si}2#§0?V(Li3AR%fifJ )
BETWEEN
SR! 8 M P'UT"I'A:5WAM:'f GO'uF!i)A*«..fl_ :
S] 0 LATE SE1'MuDA1:<3IRI''G0'wDA' *
AGED ABQU"F45'?[_Y'EAR_§3,_ " »
R/O BmARE;¢;'ALLI vILLAfaE ';mD"»P:)ST,
C.A.KE__R_E I4i{)BL§::v_ ADIBUR *mLL3I<f,
MAN1f:YAT':);s'rRIcr:f.' _ ' .
PETYFIONER
(By Sztif Sm pk N pH--.a1¢:'N;;5}?--.a'655 VAISHALI HEGDE,
M/ZS. ;~1E Y';x,,"2;§.i;Lr; PANCHAYAT
'--RE¥>REsErz':%:D BY {TS PRESIDENT,
lv'iAN[f';A.{iwIS'PRICT, MANDYA.
TALUK PANCHAYAT
A' R'E'-.f'RESEN'}'ED BY ITS FRESIDENT,
" 'MADDUR TALUK, MADDUR.
BIDAREHALI GRAM PANCHAYATH
'"REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BHJAREHALLI 571 422,
MADDUR TALL? K,MflN DYA £)ISTRi'C'i',
J
J \
4 SE13 HANUMEGOWDA
S10 LATE SR3 SIDDEGOWDA
MAJOR, '
R/O BIDAREHALLI v1LL*AGE,_gsg ' " " .
C.A.KERE 11031.1, MAEDDURTALUK,-«A .; _ v
MANDYA DISTRICT.
5 SRISANNEGOWDA '
S/O LATE SR1. HANUMEGQWDA ' --
@THAMMEGOWDA ' 3
R/C} BIDAREHALLI mp.-A$E--A'rw P(")S'I","~
CJ.A.KERE HOBLI MA1;:eDu_R '*1-tgzgjirz,
MANEJYA I}IS"T'RIC"i'.g '-- 1 A.
" ' RESPONDENTS
(By Sni ; B J_s<§§,1:r;YA;ji, Axial ;2<jIé.jR.1,_.&§iR2
' (av SRI. KRISHNIAPPA, 'Ami I:*<;_:§.Rj;24 aglésy
mls WRi'I'1-1§3ETITiO_N £S*~!1'_i.i.iE:I) LENDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227' c;»P.;rIfHEv':V4c:oN3friTu's*.1oN OF mam PRAYING TO
QUASH T_§iE.(}f-%'1}EIi*_B'£T, 25.9.2007 PASSEIZ} BY THE :31'
RESPONDENT :15: M?PEA.L"VI~i)E ANNEXURE~J AND ETC.
_THI$"'P1_E§'TITI'§Of¥£, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HE£1RIf€G IN AGRGAUP, THIS DAY THE comm' MADE
. _ THE':'F~'+:}Lb{)WINGV"E" '
ORDER
‘A ‘i’_I1::–: i:;eAi’:iti0r1er’s father by name Kullegowda
Mudaiagirigowda was regstereci as the katheciar sf
‘V’.im:1f}:)veabie praperties bearing Khata Nos.3′}’0 and
Gf Bidarehalii viilage in the records of the 3rd
respondent Bidarehafli Grama Panchayat and on fhis
M;
property, questioned the order of the 2″ in
an appeal under s1;.b.se(:.(2) of Sec.237 of
the 1st respondent — i T
Panchayat whence the pei:itionéé*’~ ”
filing objections contend1nig”‘vo4o::t;hat fesponcieniag and 5
did not have any joossession
over the property and that the
appoai was < .. Tlieoeafierwards, the:
petitioner?" 'arguments Armexure
H, orjder dated 25.9.07
A1me;%'iI;:¢¥JV aiipeal and set aside the order
of fiixe while directing the 3rd
' . _ to mgiooor the Khata of the property beamlog
on' 31136 of respondents 4 and 5 on the '
basis ofrecorés. Hence, this petition.
" 2. Indisputably, the Khata of the property
{maxing No. 500 stood in the name of Kuliegowda
% and his brother Chotegowda jointiy, whiie the
,j:%i§\
boundaries of the immovabie pmperty
No.5{')3 belonging to the responcients 4.
Panchayat would be weli advisged 1:9 A.ivss'z1.é, ..::cficé§'-LLf:<)'*?;§":e
said respor:den£s and extmzcj of *
before concluding the p:'oc<–:éd)*§_V'IiigsV. § " i
csg